If someone can pronounce/w/ (as in very=>wery) they won't pronounce "w" as a "v".
Just one of those things... you have both/v/ and/w/ in your sentence, but they're transposed... if someone could pronounce both, they wouldn't reverse them. Only one way or the other. Thus:
"In Sowiet Russia, winters are wery, wery cold." -or- "In Soviet Russia, vinters are very, very cold."
I kills the joke, I know, but that's my job as a pedantic prick;)
Well, these scientists aren't even talking about far east Asia. They're talking about the area near the present day nation of Georgia. That's still quite a big distance away from China.
Her even later descendents Homo erectus, H. habilis, or neanderthalis wanders out into Asia and becomes H. sapiens, who in turn wanders back to Africa, and of course, the rest of the world. Note that fossils of H. erectus, which is considered to be two species before modern humans, were found in Dragonbone cave in China.
The article says that even these scientists who are questioning the Africa only origin are saying that H. erectus definitely came from Africa.
It looks like these researchers (who are tentatively asserting an alternate theory against what is currently widely believed, and thus conflicted with what should be present in the wikipedia article) are attempting to put forth that things are a lot more complicated than we thought, and 1.8 some million years ago, about the same time as Australopithecus afarensis was around there were an alternate hominid species in Asia, that Australopithecus afarensis potentitally came from. And that this orphaned Asian hominid tree eventually died out about 18,000 years ago with with H. floresiensis being essentially what is believed to possibly be the final end of that hominid tree.
3) Virtual PC and WINE running under Linux do not use the Microsoft Graphics Rendering Engine.
You do not understand how Virtual PC works. Virtual PC does in fact use the Microsoft Graphics Rendering Engine that is broken, and the Windows that is running under Virtual PC can be infected the same as any Windows platform.
WINE does not use the vulnerable DLL by default, and has a seperate and independent implementation of that DLL. You can however, install the DLL and thus become potentially vulnerable.
Since WINE presents a Windows like environment to programs, it is unknown if WINE is sufficiently bug-for-bug compliant enough that it would allow this exploit to work. But be aware, that if a program prints out "Segmentation Fault" it's potentially possible that it can be exploited.
But regardless of anything about WINE, a Virtual PC image running a vulnerable copy of Windows is most definitely vulnerable. Just the hosting Linux computer isn't vulnerable.
Yeah, after having read the article, it appears that they're pushing for that kind of an interpretation.
Most accurately, the scientists are saying we can't rule out that they might have come from Asia (the area near Georgia, not far east Asia) since the conditions there were very much the same as they were in Africa millions of years ago.
It's more like the scientists are saying "this is a possibility that is being exposed more and more," and of course the media jumps on it as usual with "OMG, this scientist is asking if we might be from Asia." Presenting it as if the scientiests are more confident about their probability than they likely actually are.
Actually, after having RTFA, the article is somewhat sensationalised.
First, they do not doubt that H. erectus came out of Africa, it's very well established that it did. The issue with that, is that H. sapiens are believed to have had H. erectus as ancestors. So "humans" in so far as it means H. sapiens, came from Africa to the best possible explaination that anyone has.
The issue here is that they're discussing where other hominids came from, and where the hominids that evolved in Africa came from.
If they did mean Asia, then it would mean somewhere near the modern country of Georgia, not far east Asia, or middle east Asia. Just plain "Asia" (it's pretty easy to forget that many Russians are Asians, not Europeans)
Since they know those areas of Asia to have been covered with similar Savannahs as Africa during about 1.8 some million years ago, they say that you can't rule out that early hominids could have been thriving in that area, or that hominids didn't actually come from that area, and just had an early migration into Africa.
They point to H. floresiensis, saying that it was likely a terminating evolutionary point of an orphaned hominid line independent of African evolutionary heritage.
We have tons of data points showing homo sapiens evolved in Africa. So many of the missing links like Lucy and other members of the homo tree have all been found in Africa.
I'm not debating their points (I've not read the article yet), but it would seem to require us to throw out the data that we already have. If homo species migrated to the rest of the world from Asia, then it would have requires Lucy, a relatively primitive human to have gotten to Africa, then start a long series of descendents and multiple branches of evolution there, eventually resulting in homo sapiens.
Courts deal with "persons", which are actually legal entities. It just so happens that in the vast majority of cases, legal entities are confined in squishy tissue boundaries.
But there are a number of "persons" who can appear before court that aren't confined in squishy tissue boundaries. (btw, that's a real legal term... squishy tissue boundary...)
Which do you prefer? ISPs readily disclosing customer info to *AA leading the *AA to extort people directly or ISPs refusing to disclose info until forced by the courts during the normal discovery process?
Neither. I want the ISPs to have the ability to refuse to disclose customer information to the RIAA unless they have been issued a court order. Note, this isn't EXACTLY what you said in the second part, because it allows that the ISP can choose to disclose the information, if upon their own evaluation the information is warranted.
If the ISP releases the information and it wasn't warranted or permitted, then you have the recourse of acting against them. Also note, this is the way it is now.
Following due process at least prevents the *AA from picking specific targets and also forces them to more thoroughly investigate each case they plan to file.
That's exactly the point. Who knows it's due process, until the court examines it. John Doe #8 is asserting that the RIAA has not sufficiently followed due process in their actions against him and the other 25 John Does.
It's all a legal battle. In court, everyone says their going to do something, and they try and make their case, and the court either agrees or disagrees, then they move on to the next matter.
The *AAs fought long and hard to circumvent due process but they failed, now they're forced to sue Jon Doe by following due process... everybody should be happy that the *AAs are finally using the legal system the way they are supposed to instead of trying to work around it.
Crap, wait... were you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Either way, I agree with this statement...
If you were agreeing with me, then it's all good, but if not... um... I don't know what to argue about since we both agree that it's a good thing that the RIAA is being forced to operate under due process.
While I agree that this is what ex parte is intended for. It's perfectly reasonable for the person to fight against it, and ask, is this really what we should be allowing?
But in some ways, it could be misused. Say someone walks past my front yard and throws a bag on my lawn. I didn't see them, but when I get the bag, there's a reciept in there with a date and time of where he bought something. If I wanted to sue the person should I be allowed to ex parte sue them as a John Doe on the first hand, so that I can then contact the store and force them to reveal who the person was?
The question is just how much justification need be shown to grant an ex parte order of this nature (they're arguing it's insufficient).
Right now the RIAA is the only person talking to the judge about this case, because the defendents are all "John Doe" and thus are unable to be identified and brought before the judge.
From the impression that I gett, I think RIAA is trying rigerously to get a finding against these individuals for copyright infringement, and then get their identity. More likely, they're using these ex parte appearances (where the defendent isn't present) to get the judge to authorize them to be able to obtain the names required in order to bring a proper suit against these people.
I'd say this is pretty similar to a situation where someone breaks into your house, and leaves a very weak trail, and the cops peeter out. So, you sue the person as a John Doe, then try and use that to find out who John Doe is.
Basically, it's like putting the cart before the horse to me. They're suing people before they even know who they're suing. For all they know, they could be suing someone on their legal team, or even the judge!
It's a comment that's posted to an article about pranks.
The guy is pranking. I caught it at the laser->radar thing. At first, I was like "Did I read that right?" then "This guy is a moron", then "Lol, nice one, almost believable if you're guillible enough."
Put enough scencerity and confidence in what you're saying, and some people are bound to believe you.
Grammar tip of the day: Wrong: Their after us! Run! Right:They're after us! Run!
See, now *THIS* is a funny grammar tip sig.
Unlike another particular one, that I'll not mention... only saying that the usage of "affect" vs. "effect" that it's not unreasonable to imagine someone might make an incorrect grammar tip sig based on it.
Wordplay has long been a trait of the hacker community, dating back 40 years or more.
Wow, really? Oh wait, next thing you're going to tell me is that word play has been a part of the entire English language for centuries upon centuries, back to before English would be mutually intelligable to us... Seriously, go on, tell me another one.
"Virii" obviously has valid meaning, or you wouldn't have been able to understand it, let alone supply an alternate spelling for it.
Lts f ppl ndrstnd wrds wtht vwls n thm, but that doesn't mean we should all just use that, because it's confusing, and bothersome.
Virii entered the hacker argot well over ten years ago -- your whining won't eliminate it.
Right, and it has it's place, like "foo", and "bar". From my experience "virii" as a plural is propogated mostly by stupid script kiddies, and less so by educated programmers. It sounds as much in place with his post as using the word "w00t", or "d00t". I'm not complaining so much about his use of virii, but rather the discord that it makes with his use of "fait accompli".
Give the whole "O woe are we! Our poor, precious language is under attack from heathens who mock the very Latin roots of it!" a rest.
Dude, seriously, I don't give a shit about people "attacking" our precious language. But using "virii" as a plural is stupid, it's attempting to apply a pluralization rule that just doesn't belong in English, and didn't even fit in the language that it came from.
Again, if you're writing some script kiddy speak, then I expect to see "virii", and "viruses" would look unauthentic. But if someone is walking around slapping around terms like "fait accompli", then they damn well should have the education to know the proper plural of "virus", and I expect them to use it. It's a social expectation, you're free to disagree, but I don't like seeing "virii" in well composed formal English.
Language is not a static thing under the watchful control of the OED -- the OED simply reports on the current state of the words. Their slogan proudly proclaims "The definitive record of the English language." Nowhere do they imply control over the words contained within.
I'm just going to assume that you didn't hear nothing, and don't understand that I be knowing what I be talking about. I understand that Language is not static. It's a very simple thing to clearly see.
While the OED does not dictate usage, it's perfectly acceptable for a social group to not like, and not approve of nothing that suits them. And to express such concern to the person making the statement. Were you in the presence of some dignitary of a nother country, and you would use non-standard English, then you're just being rude.
The composition of his article shows an education, and an experience, and a vocabulary above many peoples, hell, I had to look up "fait accompli" to know what it meant (not that I'm any sort of authority on the English language anymore... I was good as a young child, but I lost all that focus when I started learning other languages). If someone is using words like "fait accompli", I expect them to use the damn proper pluralization of "virus".
I mean, to not do so, ain't be making no sense... it's like using non-standard grammar when making a formal argument based on logic. People just ain't be hearing what you're saying, because they're too distracted by how you be saying it.
The medical issues in House are all based somewhat on real cases that have happened. The thing of it is that these stories come from EVERYWHERE in the world.
Seriously, I mean, could you actually believe that they would every week have a (generally) high profile patient come down with something so rare?
This guy deals with more Zebras than a Zebra farm in Africa. It's just not possible.
Yes, it's possible to get African Sleeping Sickness from sexual contact, but it's highly unlikely. It happened once though, and it likely took those doctors a lot longer to figure it out than House did... I mean, House only has 1 hour of drama to show.
So, the cases have been sensationalized, and drummed up, but underlying them they actually are based somewhat on fact... they're just based on the most crazy stories that many many doctors have collected over many many years... all pushed into one doctor who's coming at them one at a time every week on the button. (They even reference this in the show: "He saves one patient a week.")
When I was in the Army, they insisted that we drink 4 some canteens of water a day. (8 glasses of water equivalently) We were forced to drink one full canteen before going to bed, and we were given an accurate gauge of if we were dehydrated: if your piss was any more yellow than a tinge, then you were dehydrated.
I would drink 2 canteens a day, and I would have clear piss. Of course, I also come from a desert, and I'm very accustomed to dehydration (not the fault of the desert, just me being a stupid umbs. Seriously, I've passed out from dehydration on at least 2 occations.)
So, yes, it varies. Even with all the water they had us drink, there was one guy who passed out from dehydration (not me, with 2 canteens a day, I was quite well hydrated), obviously he needed more hydration than I.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, vinters are wery, wery cold.
/w/ (as in very=>wery) they won't pronounce "w" as a "v".
/v/ and /w/ in your sentence, but they're transposed... if someone could pronounce both, they wouldn't reverse them. Only one way or the other. Thus:
;)
If someone can pronounce
Just one of those things... you have both
"In Sowiet Russia, winters are wery, wery cold."
-or-
"In Soviet Russia, vinters are very, very cold."
I kills the joke, I know, but that's my job as a pedantic prick
Well, these scientists aren't even talking about far east Asia. They're talking about the area near the present day nation of Georgia. That's still quite a big distance away from China.
Please tell me that "homo tree" is not a scientific term...I would make a joke about it, but, well that's too obvious...
Hah... um, no it's not. It's likely better said "homo sapien line of descent".
Her even later descendents Homo erectus, H. habilis, or neanderthalis wanders out into Asia and becomes H. sapiens, who in turn wanders back to Africa, and of course, the rest of the world. Note that fossils of H. erectus, which is considered to be two species before modern humans, were found in Dragonbone cave in China.
The article says that even these scientists who are questioning the Africa only origin are saying that H. erectus definitely came from Africa.
It looks like these researchers (who are tentatively asserting an alternate theory against what is currently widely believed, and thus conflicted with what should be present in the wikipedia article) are attempting to put forth that things are a lot more complicated than we thought, and 1.8 some million years ago, about the same time as Australopithecus afarensis was around there were an alternate hominid species in Asia, that Australopithecus afarensis potentitally came from. And that this orphaned Asian hominid tree eventually died out about 18,000 years ago with with H. floresiensis being essentially what is believed to possibly be the final end of that hominid tree.
3) Virtual PC and WINE running under Linux do not use the Microsoft Graphics Rendering Engine.
You do not understand how Virtual PC works. Virtual PC does in fact use the Microsoft Graphics Rendering Engine that is broken, and the Windows that is running under Virtual PC can be infected the same as any Windows platform.
WINE does not use the vulnerable DLL by default, and has a seperate and independent implementation of that DLL. You can however, install the DLL and thus become potentially vulnerable.
Since WINE presents a Windows like environment to programs, it is unknown if WINE is sufficiently bug-for-bug compliant enough that it would allow this exploit to work. But be aware, that if a program prints out "Segmentation Fault" it's potentially possible that it can be exploited.
But regardless of anything about WINE, a Virtual PC image running a vulnerable copy of Windows is most definitely vulnerable. Just the hosting Linux computer isn't vulnerable.
Yeah, after having read the article, it appears that they're pushing for that kind of an interpretation.
Most accurately, the scientists are saying we can't rule out that they might have come from Asia (the area near Georgia, not far east Asia) since the conditions there were very much the same as they were in Africa millions of years ago.
It's more like the scientists are saying "this is a possibility that is being exposed more and more," and of course the media jumps on it as usual with "OMG, this scientist is asking if we might be from Asia." Presenting it as if the scientiests are more confident about their probability than they likely actually are.
Actually, after having RTFA, the article is somewhat sensationalised.
First, they do not doubt that H. erectus came out of Africa, it's very well established that it did. The issue with that, is that H. sapiens are believed to have had H. erectus as ancestors. So "humans" in so far as it means H. sapiens, came from Africa to the best possible explaination that anyone has.
The issue here is that they're discussing where other hominids came from, and where the hominids that evolved in Africa came from.
If they did mean Asia, then it would mean somewhere near the modern country of Georgia, not far east Asia, or middle east Asia. Just plain "Asia" (it's pretty easy to forget that many Russians are Asians, not Europeans)
Since they know those areas of Asia to have been covered with similar Savannahs as Africa during about 1.8 some million years ago, they say that you can't rule out that early hominids could have been thriving in that area, or that hominids didn't actually come from that area, and just had an early migration into Africa.
They point to H. floresiensis, saying that it was likely a terminating evolutionary point of an orphaned hominid line independent of African evolutionary heritage.
We have tons of data points showing homo sapiens evolved in Africa. So many of the missing links like Lucy and other members of the homo tree have all been found in Africa.
I'm not debating their points (I've not read the article yet), but it would seem to require us to throw out the data that we already have. If homo species migrated to the rest of the world from Asia, then it would have requires Lucy, a relatively primitive human to have gotten to Africa, then start a long series of descendents and multiple branches of evolution there, eventually resulting in homo sapiens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_entity
Courts deal with "persons", which are actually legal entities. It just so happens that in the vast majority of cases, legal entities are confined in squishy tissue boundaries.
But there are a number of "persons" who can appear before court that aren't confined in squishy tissue boundaries. (btw, that's a real legal term... squishy tissue boundary...)
sorry, I just got totally sidetracked there...
Which do you prefer? ISPs readily disclosing customer info to *AA leading the *AA to extort people directly or ISPs refusing to disclose info until forced by the courts during the normal discovery process?
Neither. I want the ISPs to have the ability to refuse to disclose customer information to the RIAA unless they have been issued a court order. Note, this isn't EXACTLY what you said in the second part, because it allows that the ISP can choose to disclose the information, if upon their own evaluation the information is warranted.
If the ISP releases the information and it wasn't warranted or permitted, then you have the recourse of acting against them. Also note, this is the way it is now.
Following due process at least prevents the *AA from picking specific targets and also forces them to more thoroughly investigate each case they plan to file.
That's exactly the point. Who knows it's due process, until the court examines it. John Doe #8 is asserting that the RIAA has not sufficiently followed due process in their actions against him and the other 25 John Does.
It's all a legal battle. In court, everyone says their going to do something, and they try and make their case, and the court either agrees or disagrees, then they move on to the next matter.
The *AAs fought long and hard to circumvent due process but they failed, now they're forced to sue Jon Doe by following due process... everybody should be happy that the *AAs are finally using the legal system the way they are supposed to instead of trying to work around it.
Crap, wait... were you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Either way, I agree with this statement...
If you were agreeing with me, then it's all good, but if not... um... I don't know what to argue about since we both agree that it's a good thing that the RIAA is being forced to operate under due process.
While I agree that this is what ex parte is intended for. It's perfectly reasonable for the person to fight against it, and ask, is this really what we should be allowing?
But in some ways, it could be misused. Say someone walks past my front yard and throws a bag on my lawn. I didn't see them, but when I get the bag, there's a reciept in there with a date and time of where he bought something. If I wanted to sue the person should I be allowed to ex parte sue them as a John Doe on the first hand, so that I can then contact the store and force them to reveal who the person was?
The question is just how much justification need be shown to grant an ex parte order of this nature (they're arguing it's insufficient).
Right now the RIAA is the only person talking to the judge about this case, because the defendents are all "John Doe" and thus are unable to be identified and brought before the judge.
From the impression that I gett, I think RIAA is trying rigerously to get a finding against these individuals for copyright infringement, and then get their identity. More likely, they're using these ex parte appearances (where the defendent isn't present) to get the judge to authorize them to be able to obtain the names required in order to bring a proper suit against these people.
I'd say this is pretty similar to a situation where someone breaks into your house, and leaves a very weak trail, and the cops peeter out. So, you sue the person as a John Doe, then try and use that to find out who John Doe is.
Basically, it's like putting the cart before the horse to me. They're suing people before they even know who they're suing. For all they know, they could be suing someone on their legal team, or even the judge!
Oh... I understood that. It still wasn't funny. I guess I need to replace my comedy integration device.
Actually, even if the joke is impressively funny to begin with, once you explain the joke, it's not funny.
So, don't worry, your CID is working fine. This one just missed the central activation unit, and your CID didn't trigger a response. Happens a lot.
HA! I didn't even catch that it was you who posted this...
Now all my beliefs in the prankness of this being a "real" story are confirmed...
Hilarious though, absoluately hilarious.
There's yet ANOTHER reason it's BS...
It's a comment that's posted to an article about pranks.
The guy is pranking. I caught it at the laser->radar thing. At first, I was like "Did I read that right?" then "This guy is a moron", then "Lol, nice one, almost believable if you're guillible enough."
Put enough scencerity and confidence in what you're saying, and some people are bound to believe you.
See, now *THIS* is a funny grammar tip sig.
Unlike another particular one, that I'll not mention... only saying that the usage of "affect" vs. "effect" that it's not unreasonable to imagine someone might make an incorrect grammar tip sig based on it.
which should be about (1 hour and 3 hours) before midnight.
which should be (about 1 hour) and (3 hours before midnight).
Parantheses added in order to indicate how the reading would happen.
Basically, there's the problem of not being certain what the "and" connects together.
Wordplay has long been a trait of the hacker community, dating back 40 years or more.
Wow, really? Oh wait, next thing you're going to tell me is that word play has been a part of the entire English language for centuries upon centuries, back to before English would be mutually intelligable to us... Seriously, go on, tell me another one.
"Virii" obviously has valid meaning, or you wouldn't have been able to understand it, let alone supply an alternate spelling for it.
Lts f ppl ndrstnd wrds wtht vwls n thm, but that doesn't mean we should all just use that, because it's confusing, and bothersome.
Virii entered the hacker argot well over ten years ago -- your whining won't eliminate it.
Right, and it has it's place, like "foo", and "bar". From my experience "virii" as a plural is propogated mostly by stupid script kiddies, and less so by educated programmers. It sounds as much in place with his post as using the word "w00t", or "d00t". I'm not complaining so much about his use of virii, but rather the discord that it makes with his use of "fait accompli".
Give the whole "O woe are we! Our poor, precious language is under attack from heathens who mock the very Latin roots of it!" a rest.
Dude, seriously, I don't give a shit about people "attacking" our precious language. But using "virii" as a plural is stupid, it's attempting to apply a pluralization rule that just doesn't belong in English, and didn't even fit in the language that it came from.
Again, if you're writing some script kiddy speak, then I expect to see "virii", and "viruses" would look unauthentic. But if someone is walking around slapping around terms like "fait accompli", then they damn well should have the education to know the proper plural of "virus", and I expect them to use it. It's a social expectation, you're free to disagree, but I don't like seeing "virii" in well composed formal English.
Language is not a static thing under the watchful control of the OED -- the OED simply reports on the current state of the words. Their slogan proudly proclaims "The definitive record of the English language." Nowhere do they imply control over the words contained within.
I'm just going to assume that you didn't hear nothing, and don't understand that I be knowing what I be talking about. I understand that Language is not static. It's a very simple thing to clearly see.
While the OED does not dictate usage, it's perfectly acceptable for a social group to not like, and not approve of nothing that suits them. And to express such concern to the person making the statement. Were you in the presence of some dignitary of a nother country, and you would use non-standard English, then you're just being rude.
The composition of his article shows an education, and an experience, and a vocabulary above many peoples, hell, I had to look up "fait accompli" to know what it meant (not that I'm any sort of authority on the English language anymore... I was good as a young child, but I lost all that focus when I started learning other languages). If someone is using words like "fait accompli", I expect them to use the damn proper pluralization of "virus".
I mean, to not do so, ain't be making no sense... it's like using non-standard grammar when making a formal argument based on logic. People just ain't be hearing what you're saying, because they're too distracted by how you be saying it.
This just in... Windows sucks, and Linux rules...
More info coming soon, on Slashdot: News against Microsoft, and Stuff for Linux.
Of course, with their track record that means it'll be either easily cracked and/or your DVD player will become infested with worms and virii.
Expect it to go to court after it is fait accompli.
How can you use "fait accompli" properly, yet not know the plural of "virus" is "viruses"?
Oh I got it after I posted my comment. But, as with most ambiguity, it's not funny until someone points it out to you.
The medical issues in House are all based somewhat on real cases that have happened. The thing of it is that these stories come from EVERYWHERE in the world.
Seriously, I mean, could you actually believe that they would every week have a (generally) high profile patient come down with something so rare?
This guy deals with more Zebras than a Zebra farm in Africa. It's just not possible.
Yes, it's possible to get African Sleeping Sickness from sexual contact, but it's highly unlikely. It happened once though, and it likely took those doctors a lot longer to figure it out than House did... I mean, House only has 1 hour of drama to show.
So, the cases have been sensationalized, and drummed up, but underlying them they actually are based somewhat on fact... they're just based on the most crazy stories that many many doctors have collected over many many years... all pushed into one doctor who's coming at them one at a time every week on the button. (They even reference this in the show: "He saves one patient a week.")
I'm expecting the search warrant people to take all the beer bottles with them, so I don't have to throw them away.
Damn, I'm a bad procrastinater...
When I was in the Army, they insisted that we drink 4 some canteens of water a day. (8 glasses of water equivalently) We were forced to drink one full canteen before going to bed, and we were given an accurate gauge of if we were dehydrated: if your piss was any more yellow than a tinge, then you were dehydrated.
I would drink 2 canteens a day, and I would have clear piss. Of course, I also come from a desert, and I'm very accustomed to dehydration (not the fault of the desert, just me being a stupid umbs. Seriously, I've passed out from dehydration on at least 2 occations.)
So, yes, it varies. Even with all the water they had us drink, there was one guy who passed out from dehydration (not me, with 2 canteens a day, I was quite well hydrated), obviously he needed more hydration than I.
which should be about 1 hour and 3 hours before midnight.
I think you need to lay off the alcohol already...